Dong Weilu, Wu Yiyun, Cai Ting, Wang Xiangqian
Department of Ultrasound Medicine, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine (Jiangsu Province Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Nanjing, China.
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2023 Mar 1;13(3):1711-1722. doi: 10.21037/qims-22-685. Epub 2023 Feb 23.
The sonography-based risk stratification of thyroid nodules is based on the different sonographic features of benign and malignant thyroid nodules. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TIRADS) and the Chinese-TIRADS define different risks for malignancy categories and the size criteria for fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Few studies have compared their diagnostic performance and FNA management approaches. Thus, we sought to compare the diagnostic performance and FNA management approaches of the ACR-TIRADS and Chinese-TIRADS based on surgical histological evidence.
This retrospective study included patients with complete thyroid ultrasound images and histologic evidence who were consecutively selected from The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine. A total of 333 nodules from 252 patients with definitive surgical histological findings were examined. Ultrasonography categories and FNA management proposals were assigned according to the ACR-TIRADS and Chinese-TIRADS. The thyroid nodules were divided into 2 groups based on a cut-off size of 1 cm. The diagnostic performance and recommended and unnecessary FNA rates for each group were compared for both systems.
Overall, 280 malignant thyroid nodules (84.1%) and 53 benign nodules (15.9%) were analyzed. Across all groups, the ACR-TIRADS had higher sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy, and a higher area under the curve (AUC) than the Chinese-TIRADS. However, there was a significant difference in the negative predictive value between the ACR-TIRADS and Chinese-TIRADS of <1 and ≥1 cm, and the overall AUCs differed significantly (39.5% 35.1%, P=0.007 for <1 cm; 70.0% 62.8%, P=0.014 for ≥1 cm; 0.843 0.806, P=0.037 for all). The rate for recommending the FNA of the nodules in the ACR-TIRADS was lower than that in the Chinese-TIRADS (25.2% 56.5%, P<0.0001), but there was no significant difference between the ACR-TIRADS and Chinese-TIRADS in terms of the unnecessary FNA rate (14.3% 13.8%, P=0.931). The kappa statistics for the consistency of the ACR-TIRADS and Chinese-TIRADS FNA recommendations for nodules sized ≥1.0 to <1.5, ≥1.5 to <2.5, and ≥2.5 cm were 0.084, 0.635, and 0.909, respectively.
The ACR-TIRADS had slightly better diagnostic performance and a lower recommended FNA rate than the Chinese-TIRADS for thyroid nodules. For thyroid nodules ≥1.5 cm in size, the FNA recommendations of the 2 guidelines had good consistency.
基于超声的甲状腺结节风险分层是依据良性和恶性甲状腺结节不同的超声特征。美国放射学会(ACR)甲状腺影像报告和数据系统(TIRADS)以及中国版TIRADS对恶性类别风险及细针穿刺活检(FNA)的大小标准定义不同。很少有研究比较它们的诊断性能及FNA管理方法。因此,我们旨在基于手术组织学证据比较ACR-TIRADS和中国版TIRADS的诊断性能及FNA管理方法。
这项回顾性研究纳入了从南京中医药大学附属医院连续选取的有完整甲状腺超声图像和组织学证据的患者。对252例有明确手术组织学结果的患者的总共333个结节进行了检查。根据ACR-TIRADS和中国版TIRADS对超声类别及FNA管理建议进行分类。基于1 cm的临界大小将甲状腺结节分为两组。比较两个系统每组的诊断性能、推荐FNA率及不必要FNA率。
总体上,分析了28个恶性甲状腺结节(84.1%)和53个良性结节(15.9%)。在所有组中,ACR-TIRADS比中国版TIRADS具有更高的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值以及准确性,且曲线下面积(AUC)更高。然而,ACR-TIRADS和中国版TIRADS在<1 cm和≥1 cm的阴性预测值上存在显著差异,总体AUC也有显著差异(<1 cm时为39.5%对35.1%,P = 0.007;≥1 cm时为70.0%对62.8%,P = 0.014;所有结节时为0.843对0.806,P = 0.037)。ACR-TIRADS中结节推荐FNA的比率低于中国版TIRADS(25.2%对56.5%,P<0.0001),但在不必要FNA率方面ACR-TIRADS和中国版TIRADS之间无显著差异(14.3%对13.8%,P = 0.931)。对于大小≥1.0至<1.5 cm、≥1.5至<2.5 cm和≥2.5 cm的结节,ACR-TIRADS和中国版TIRADS的FNA推荐一致性的kappa统计量分别为0.084、0.635和0.909。
对于甲状腺结节,ACR-TIRADS的诊断性能略优于中国版TIRADS,且推荐FNA率更低。对于大小≥1.5 cm的甲状腺结节,两个指南的FNA推荐具有良好的一致性。